Comparison of SITAfast to Standard Full Threshold in Automated Perimetry

Abstract

A comparative study of visual field evaluation by SITAfast strategy and standard full threshold algorithm on 30 randomly chosen patients with POAG. The glaucoma patients were divided into three groups based on the severity of the disease. Each patient underwent visual field testing by SFT and SITAfast strategies on the same day with an interval of 1-2 hours. Results: SITAfast was found to have 89.47% sensitivity as well as positive predictive value, 81.82% specificity and negative predictive value. SITAfast has an accuracy of 86.67%. The values of Pattern Standard Deviation, Mean Deviation and points with less than 0.5% probability which are all indicative of severity of disease were found to be comparable in SITAfast and SFT. The mean percentage of time saved was 61%. Conclusion: These results suggest that SITAfast matches the precision of older thresholding  methods consuming considerably and significantly less test time. SITAfast can be used as a standard clinical test in glaucoma evaluation without decreasing the quality of test results.